On 7/14/07, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> One area for discussion is the split between the optional Collections
> component and the 'Core' beanutils. Do we maintain that, or should we
> just fold the code back together?
>
> 1.7.0 shipped three versions:
>
> commons-beanutils-1.7.0.jar
> commons-beanutils-core-1.7.0.jar
> commons-beanutils-collections-1.7.0.jar
>
> where the first is the sum of the second and third.
>
> Personally I think we should just merge them back together. It's not
> worth the effort.
The purpose is to avoid forcing users to take dependencies that they are
not interested in, [collections] in this case. As such I think that the
split is a Good Thing.
Theres two separate issues here:
1) What artifacts are packaged and distributed
2) How the structure of the project and the project's build is organised
Although at first sight the Collections dependency was removed from
BeanUtils 1.7.0 - in reality it is still there as a optional
dependency in the main jar (i.e. commons-beanutils.jar) since that
packages up everything currently under BeanUtils. Merging BeanUtils
back into one component with an optional dependency in the pom on
Collections just reflects reality and will produce a
commons-beanutils-1.8.0.jar that ties up with what was distributed
under 1.7.0. We can then also add assemblies to re-create the separate
"core" and "collections" jars - so providing a "Collections free" jar
as before. The net result is a simpler project structure and build -
but effectively the same artifacts with the same dependencies as
before (just a slightly more honest pom).
So I'm +1 to Henri's suggestion.
Niall
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
